Volltextveröffentlichung

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte

  MALMBERG AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  Violation of Article 6 - Right to a fair trial (Article 6 - Civil proceedings Article 6-1 - Fair hearing) (englisch)

Sonstiges (2)

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  Malmberg and Others v. Russia

• Europäischer Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte (Verfahrensmitteilung)

  MALMBERG AND OTHER APPLICATIONS v. RUSSIA

  Art. 6, Art. 6 Abs. 1 MRK
  [ENG]

Wird zitiert von ... (3)Neu Zitiert selbst (4)

• EGMR, 18.02.1999 - 24645/94

  BUSCARINI ET AUTRES c. SAINT-MARIN

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 23045/05

  As to the Government's argument that Law no. 262-FZ provided for the compulsory publication of judgments on the internet in compliance with the requirement to pronounce judgments publicly, the Court notes that the events complained of in the instant case took place before that legislation entered into force on 1 July 2010 (see paragraph 41 above and Buscarini and Others v. San Marino [GC], no. 24645/94, § 40, ECHR 1999-I).
• EGMR, 17.01.2008 - 14810/02

  RYAKIB BIRYUKOV v. RUSSIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 23045/05

  That problem had been identified by the Court in its judgment in the case of Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia (no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008).
• EGMR, 08.12.1983 - 8273/78

  Axen ./. Deutschland

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 23045/05

  Turning to the facts of the present applications and taking into account the proceedings as a whole (see, for example, Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, §§ 27 and 32, Series A no. 72, and Moser v. Austria, no. 12643/02, § 101, 21 September 2006), the Court observes that the St Petersburg City Court, the Ulyanovsk Regional Court and the Moscow City Court read out the operative parts of their judgments at public hearings, that they prepared the full texts of their judgments later, and that the reading out of the lower courts" judgments - which they upheld on appeal fully or partially - was also limited to their operative parts.
• EGMR, 21.09.2006 - 12643/02

  MOSER v. AUSTRIA

  Auszug aus EGMR, 15.01.2015 - 23045/05

  Turning to the facts of the present applications and taking into account the proceedings as a whole (see, for example, Axen v. Germany, 8 December 1983, §§ 27 and 32, Series A no. 72, and Moser v. Austria, no. 12643/02, § 101, 21 September 2006), the Court observes that the St Petersburg City Court, the Ulyanovsk Regional Court and the Moscow City Court read out the operative parts of their judgments at public hearings, that they prepared the full texts of their judgments later, and that the reading out of the lower courts" judgments - which they upheld on appeal fully or partially - was also limited to their operative parts.

• EGMR, 21.07.2020 - 3333/08

  TATUYEV v. RUSSIA

  23045/05 and 3 others, §§ 30-41, 15 January 2015.

  The Court has previously found a violation of Article 6 § 1 of the Convention by the respondent State on account of the lack of public access to a reasoned judgment in a civil case in which only the operative part of the judgment was read out in open court and the full text of the judgment was prepared later (see Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, §§ 28-46, ECHR 2008, and Malmberg and Others v. Russia, nos. 23045/05 and 3 others, §§ 43-58, 15 January 2015).

• EGMR, 16.11.2021 - 7610/15

  VASIL VASILEV v. BULGARIA

  And although in December 2014 and January 2015 respectively the two judgments were declassified, and the applicant was able to obtain copies of them, it appears that they have still not been published on the respective courts" websites, as has been the statutory requirement for court judgments in Bulgaria since 2007 (see paragraphs 32 and 60 above, and contrast Malmberg and Others v. Russia, nos. 23045/05 and 3 others, § 56, 15 January 2015).
• EGMR - 4460/16 (anhängig)

  SABLINA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA

  (c) Was the public pronouncement of the operative parts of the court decisions in the applicants" case sufficient to satisfy the relevant requirement of Article 6 § 1 (see Malmberg and Others v. Russia, nos. 23045/05, 21236/09, 17759/10 and 48402/10, 15 January 2015, and Ryakib Biryukov v. Russia, no. 14810/02, ECHR 2008)? If not, was there a breach of the relevant guarantee of Article 6 § 1?.